3 ms·
I don't have any problem with them adopting a test flight heavy methodology, however it is extremely misleading to suggest that this is the methodology which ga
by gpm 3y ago
I don't have any problem with them adopting a test flight heavy methodology, however it is extremely misleading to suggest that this is the methodology which gave them the Falcon 9.
The falcon 9 succeed on it's first launch, it was not a test flight heavy program.
The falcon 1, SpaceX's only orbital rocket prior to the falcon 9, did fail on it's first three flights, however it was never intended to and that nearly bankrupt the company. They destroyed third party payloads on flights 1 and 3, because these were intended to work, not be test flights.
Long after it was in production the falcon 9 did begin a "test-flight" heavy program, but that was for developing the ability to recover boosters after they had successfully delivered a customer payload in an operational flight, not for developing the rocket itself.
- inglor_cz 3y agoOK, I could have been more precise: the "hardware rich" program is what gave them the current reusable configuration of Falcon 9, Block Five. Which is what I would describe as the most reliable and technologically advanced launcher on the planet. The series of failures when attempting to land for the first time was spectacular.
- JumpCrisscross 3y agoYou also see dependencies early. Even if you never get to use the refuelling mechanism, you’ll gain data on how the reserved fuel sloshes and alters flight characteristics. This refines your models and may give clues as to efficiency gains that otherwise would have been an afterthought or, more likely, scrapped in the face of a deadline.
- sheepshear 3y agoAll of the Falcon 1 payloads were expendable (which includes low-priority). It was a test vehicle conducting test flights in all but name. Had they continued developing it instead of pivoting to Falcon 9, it would have been its own test vehicle. Suppose that the eventual production vehicle has a fairly different design, a different name, and it succeeds on its first flight. Would it then have used the same methodology that resulted in Falcon 9? I'm only asking rhetorically. The Ship of Theseus is an interesting philosophical question, but the way you define "methodology" shouldn't depend on your answer.